Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 27, 2016, 05:30:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97433 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 754
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam - Education, Rebuttals and Counter-Terror on: September 16, 2016, 11:07:26 AM

Some REALLY good work being done here.  Please let's use the Subject line to its full potential so as to maximize Search command efficiency!!!

102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NRO coming to grips with a Trump win on: September 16, 2016, 11:04:37 AM
The Fallout (Non-Nuclear) from a Donald Trump Victory

For anyone with reading comprehension issues, THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT. Some folks chose to see Conrad Black’s last column as him speaking on behalf of National Review as a whole, because they’re hacks and/or stupid. Black has been supportive of Trump all along.

But with Trump having a really good stretch of polling lately, let’s contemplate what would happen if he beat Hillary Clinton.

1. It would be a political earthquake, as big a cultural impact on America as the election of Barack Obama. Many corners of American society would be apoplectic with rage, disbelief and despair; magazines like The Economist, Time, The New Republic, The New York Times magazine will probably run cover essays on “The End of American Democracy” or “The Failure of American voters.” Or maybe simply, “When Evil Triumphs.” A dozen movies featuring sinister and/or bumbling egomaniac presidents would be green-lit by Hollywood. Cultural voices would declare that McCarthyism is back in full force, that Bull Connor racism is thriving, and that World War II–style internment-camps are just around the corner.

2. It would be the most awkward presidential transition in American history, because both Obama and Trump detest each other personally and their staffs almost certainly do the same.

3. The Obama legacy would suddenly shift overnight. American conservatives have argued for a while that Obama is, if not a failed president, something close to it. The Left might suddenly find itself agreeing, at least in part. A prosperous, confident, thriving, and secure America does not elect someone like Donald Trump. He’s the figure a country turns to when they’re desperate and increasingly think they don’t have much more to lose.

The Obama administration has been eight long years of officials insisting things aren’t as bad as they look. “Recovery Summer” is just around the corner. Janet Napolitano assures us, “the system worked.” Of course Obamacare will work; “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” ISIS is a jayvee team. We’re taking care of our veterans. Our secrets are secure. Obama declared in May, “By almost every measure, America is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, or 30 years ago, or even eight years ago.”
Nobody believes the happy talk anymore.

4. Hillary Clinton would become one of the most hated Democrats of all time. She would rank not merely as a loser, but as the woman who managed to lose the most winnable presidential race in modern history. Forget Mondale, forget Dukakis, forget McGovern. Trump is probably the worst Republican nominee in history — little or no message discipline, little organization, hates fundraising, isn’t convinced television ads or data analysis is needed, tons of scandals and baggage, can’t carry his home state, the media loathes him with the raging passion of a thousand suns going supernova . . . and somehow he’s still in it, and seems to be gaining strength as the race progresses. She has no excuses. She has unequaled resources. The party is reasonably unified behind her. She had a great convention. If Tim Kaine is making mistakes, no one is paying attention. Her commercials have dominated the television airwaves.
If Hillary Clinton loses, Democrats will hate her. Overnight she will go from the inspiring role model for all of America’s children to a selfish, deeply flawed candidate, blinded by ambition and obsessively secretive. Everything that Democrats now insist is inconsequential — her e-mails, the shady deals surrounding the foundation, Benghazi — they will suddenly realize was extremely consequential. The recriminations will be epic.

5. The Left might just learn a needed lesson. Perhaps this is a wildly optimistic expectation, but the American Left might have to examine why so many Americans were willing to roll the dice on Trump rather than continue the status quo.

Political correctness really has become petty bullying, an attempt to enforce economic consequences for what is a social faux pas. Yes, we’re all supposed to be respectful to others, courteous, and to avoid giving unneeded offense. (The Left would be wise to start practicing what it preaches, to “do unto others as you would have them do.”) There’s nothing inherently wrong with someone declaring, “Hey, that really offends me.” But the Left wants to go further; they want a person who offends their sensibilities to be punished for it. Oftentimes the enforcers of political correctness want the person to lose their job. They want that person to become a pariah and feel constant social ostracization. They want to enforce the most serious of consequences for hurting someone’s feelings. Sometimes they even want “some muscle over here.”

The Left would have to recognize that most of their our political and cultural elites demonstrate epic hypocrisy on a regular basis. Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel set tax policy while not paying all the taxes they owe. Al Gore runs up a giant electricity bill while telling everyone else they need to reduce their carbon emissions. Obama declares, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say ‘okay.’” And then, in the words of David Axelrod, Obama keeps the Oval Office so warm in winter that “you could grow orchids in there.” Hillary Clinton denounces greed and selfishness while collecting six-figure speaking fees. Bill Clinton gets a free pass from feminists as the sexual-harassment and womanizing allegations pile up. They talk about the importance of equal opportunity while Chelsea Clinton gets a $600,000 part-time gig at NBC News. Mike Bloomberg and Rosie O’Donnell travel the country with armed security guards while touting the need for stricter gun-control laws.

Ordinary Americans look at the elites and conclude they don’t actually believe anything they say, or at the very least, they don’t think they have to live under the rules they want to enforce for everyone else.

The Catch . . .

Some might ask, with all of that as consequence, why not vote for him? Almost all Republicans and many self-identified conservatives will. Trump has maybe a 50–50 shot at nominating good, strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, while Hillary’s odds are roughly zero. I’m #NeverTrump, but I’m not giving much grief to my friends who are voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils.

From where I sit, Trump offers a lot of the same flaws as Obama, just with a different party affiliation. Trump promises the world with little details on how he’s going to get there. In 2008, Obama promised the best of both worlds — the end to the war in Iraq and the elimination of al-Qaeda. This year Trump promises to be less interventionist and to bomb the you-know-what out of ISIS. Both men did this because the American people want both simultaneously, no matter how contradictory those desires are. I think a true leader has to force the public to come to terms with hard truths instead of playing along with their fantasies.

I realize I’m in the minority here. Obama did nothing on entitlement reform, and Trump won’t, either. At some point, when the voting public punishes the people who try to solve the problem and rewards the people who ignore the problem, people stop trying to solve the problem.

Trump is no more interested in the Constitution and limited government than Obama is, and seems every bit as petty and vindictive, every bit as likely to bristle and lash out at the slightest criticism. I just wrote about the insane pretzel-logic of the blind partisans, forgiving every sin on their side but furiously denouncing the same things on the other side.
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glick: The Twilight of American Jewry on: September 16, 2016, 10:59:13 AM
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Chaffetz vs. the FBI on: September 16, 2016, 01:09:26 AM
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / South African Wart Hog chillin' by the fireplace on: September 16, 2016, 12:37:43 AM

beginning at 01:25
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Libertarian and Green candidates on: September 16, 2016, 12:17:30 AM
Adding to Doug's comments, there is also a clip of him doing a TV interview where he corrects the interviewer for using the term "illegal aliens" in the most sanctimonious way.  Truly worthy of getting bitch slapped.
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Ten Sceptics on: September 15, 2016, 10:54:03 PM
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: September 15, 2016, 10:29:54 PM
I do not have a citation, but am I correct that Baraq is looking to bring in over 100,000 "Syrians" in 2017?   shocked angry shocked
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 15, 2016, 07:05:53 PM
Hillary's Health Gives Trump Huge Opening
Published on on September 15, 2016
Hillary's health now gives Donald Trump a second chance to make a good first impression -- something as rare in politics as it is in life.  Already polling is suggesting that Trump is surging in the wake of her collapse at the 9/11 ceremony.  The New York Times/CBS has the race even among all voters and gives Trump a two point lead among likely voters.  Rasmussen has The Donald two ahead. Reuters has it tied. LA Times/USC gives Trump a six point lead.

Animating the data is a sense that she may be far sicker than she is letting on.  Check out this video by a Parkinson's doctor correlating her episodes of fainting etc. with the more serious illness.  Click here to view video.
While Trump's surge is more of a bounce than a shift in the underlying pattern of the race, he has a chance to make it permanent.  If he continues to act presidential and avoid unforced errors, he can assume a permanent, sustainable lead.  Voters are giving him a second look now that Hillary's illness leads them to question her viability.  If they find a dignified, positive alternative in Trump, they are likely to feel more comfortable in backing him.

Already Trump has begun to fill the bill, triggering his surge over the past three weeks -- prior to 9/11.  His visit to flood-ravaged Louisiana, his meeting with the Mexican president, and his policy pronouncements on national security, the economy, immigration, and child care all projected a presidential image effectively.

In the meantime, consider this list, catalogued by, of Hillary's health episodes:

•  In 1998, while campaigning in New York, her right foot started swelling causing her pain.  Bethesda Naval Hospital doctors diagnosed a large blood clot behind her right knee.

•  In February, 2005, she fainted during a campaign speech and her aides had to catch her to break her fall.  They blamed a gastrointestinal problem.

•  On June 17, 2009, she fell and fractured her right elbow while walking to her car.  The break required surgery.

•  In 2009, Hillary also had a second blood clot that was diagnosed as "deep vein thrombosis," dangerous because the clot could break lose and cause a pulmonary embolism.

•  On January 12, 2011, Hillary tripped and fell boarding a plane.

•  On December 15, 2012, Hillary had to cancel an overseas trip due to a stomach virus.  While ill, she fainted and fell, sustaining a concussion.  Husband Bill said that her injury "required six months of very serious work to get over."

•  On December 31, 2012, during a follow-up exam at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, doctors discovered another blood clot (her third) in a large vein along the side of her head between the brain and the skull.

•  Throughout 2015 and 2016, Hillary has had prolonged coughing fits while giving speeches.  She attributes it to seasonal allergies.

•  On July 21 of this year, Hillary had what appeared to be a seizure while campaigning.  Recorded on video, her head seemed to move uncontrollably for about ten seconds.

•  On September 11th, at a memorial service, she had to leave the event while it was still in progress.  She had to be propped up as she walked to her van and collapsed getting in, losing a shoe in the process.  She revealed later that she had been diagnosed for pneumonia on September 9th but attended the event anyway.

We are entering unexplored territory here.  We have never had a presidential candidate who had to pull out before the election.  If Hillary resigns, the Democratic National Committee, two from each state, will choose her replacement.   While Tim Kaine would get consideration -- and Bernie would get none -- Joe Biden is the likely choice.  And he is harder to beat.  Be careful what you wish for.
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam - Education, Rebuttals and Counter-Terror on: September 15, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
Very glad to see this thread getting traction.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 15, 2016, 02:42:58 PM
"This (black vote) is also a critical mass question.  People are all of one view because everyone they know is all of that view.  Enter some honest debate and skepticism."

112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: September 15, 2016, 02:40:02 PM
 angry angry angry
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hudson Institute on: September 15, 2016, 02:26:06 PM

Very impressed by an article I read from here, others here seem very interesting as well.
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Timely piece by Scott Grannis on: September 14, 2016, 04:33:36 PM
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POTH: How Sugar industry shifted blame to Fat on: September 14, 2016, 12:27:10 PM
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Doctor makes serious argument it is Parkison's. on: September 13, 2016, 09:34:08 PM
117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 13, 2016, 09:27:11 PM
"This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama."

118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / SERIOUS READ: Retatement on Flight 93 on: September 13, 2016, 09:24:32 PM
119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 13, 2016, 11:35:36 AM
"the Hillary health scare has become the latest shiny object stopping us from discussing the issues and competing ideologies of governing - even in a Presidential election year."

Its been fun, but agreed.  Unless something else develops, let's move on gents.
120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / California ACTION items on: September 13, 2016, 11:33:05 AM
121  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / 2016 Registered Fighters List on: September 12, 2016, 11:25:32 PM
1: Josh "C-Lazy Eye Dog" Rogers
2:Dirk "C- Vigilant Dog" Eichstaedt
3: Mike "War Dog" Barredo, Hermosa Beach, CA
4: Jason Heatnole of Fredericksburg VA
5: Taqqee Khabir; Chicago, IL
6: Sebastian Poirier C-Pirate Dog
7: Filippo "VEGAN DOG" Pani Sardinia, Italy
8: Arianna "UNIDENTIFIED BITCH" Accorte Sardinia, Italy
9: Matteo Mascia Sardinia, Italy
10: Joel Charbonneau, Montreal, Canada
11: Pete "Smiling Dog" Juska Chicago, IL
12: Steve Vidal, Chicago IL
13: Quiet Dog Santa Barbara, CA
14: Fox Hound, ________MA
15: Richard Palacios, LV, NV
16: Michael Penafiel, LA, CA
17: Jay "C-Commando Dog" Thorne; Phoenix AZ
18: Ed Pfannenestial; Pueblo, CO
19: Gerry Hibbitts; Susanville, CA
20:  Howard Vitkus; Glendora, CA
21: Catch Dog; Moreno Valley, CA
22: Fu Dog; Hermosa Beach, CA
23: Mario "C-Beast Dog" Ramirez; Moreno Valley, CA
24:  Cutler Dozier; LA, CA
25:  Dog Greg Macnamee; NoHo, CA
26: Pappy Dog: NoHo, CA
27: James Ryely, NoHo, CA
28: Nathan "C-Faithful Dog" Carlen, Hermosa Beach CA
29: Sam Mathis: Westmont IL
30: Alex "C-Faithful Dog" Bondarenko; Hermosa Beach, CA
31: Peter "C-Dungeon Dog" Andrada; San Jose, CA
32:  William Duran;  Ajundale, CO
33:  Fu Dog:  Hermosa Beach, CA
34:  Al Romo: La Puente, CA
35:  Mei Kwan: LA, CA
36: Dog Dax Gulje; Santa Barbara, CA
122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dominance on: September 12, 2016, 12:30:21 PM
Cognitive Dominance
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 08:46 AM PDT
I'll get some down and dirty insurgent thinking up tomorrow. 

In the meantime, here's some of my thinking on a strategic concept that could direct the development of autonomous robotics.  It's called cognitive dominance. 

Cognitive dominance is the ability to make more and better decisions than the competition through the use of autonomous robotics.  This scenario, written in pentagon speak, applies some of the ideas I outlined earlier.   

The war started when a peer competitor’s African client state invaded a weaker neighbor.  The peer competitor had been investing heavily in this client state over the last decade in order to gain exclusive access to a massive tract of increasingly rare, arable land.  To expand this precious resource, the client state (with the peer competitor’s backing) invaded a neighboring country to seize its arable acreage.  This aggression created a massive humanitarian crisis, sending tens of millions of refugees north towards the safety of the European Union.  The global response to this aggression was immediate and clear, but the demands to withdraw went unheeded. 

To overcome this impasse, the US issued a stern call to the client state to withdraw and to back it up, US military forces were sent to to the region.  This move prompted the peer competitor to decry US intervention in the “internal affairs” of Africa and that US forces would not be permitted within 1,000 nautical miles of the affected region.  To back this declaration up, the peer activated a massive A2/AD defense system it had been building in the client state over the last decade.   With this move, the situation became a direct threat to US and global security.  Simply, if this provocation was allowed to stand, Africa and much of the rest of the world would be quickly divided into areas of control, defined by the effective range of A2/AD systems.  To prevent this outcome, a combined US led Joint Task Force was assembled to remove the peer competitor’s A2/AD system from the region and force the client state to return to it’s pre-war borders. 

This was the first major war since rapid advances in RAS inspired a revolution in military affairs transformed the US military.  The fruits of this transformation were seen in the first days of the war when the Joint Force opened up its first front in the war with RAS platforms and weapons systems already inside inside the opponent’s territory and formations.  In fact, much of this mix of cyber and robotic weapon systems had already penetrated the opponent years ago.  These cyber side weapons had been built to slowly traverse the Internet on their own looking for target systems to disable when hostilities began.  On the robotic side, there were long term underwater vehicles screwed in the sandy muck of the client state’s harbor, a critical pathway for the peer competitors long supply chain.  Other robotic weapons systems were entrenched in the landscape in and around the peer’s installations.

These prepositioned systems had been gathering detailed information on the peer country’s order of battle in the client state for many years.  In fact, some of these prepositioned systems were cognitively adept enough to actively retrieve [and analyze on the spot] the detailed information most needed by the Joint Force Commander.  This information provided a critical part of the “big data” in the Joint Cloud that Joint Force autonomous systems used to construct detailed physical, organizational, and systemic models of the opponent.  These models made it possible for the Joint Task Force commander to run the millions of simulated engagements needed to develop successful methods of attack and uncover the nasty surprises that could put the mission in jeopardy. 

Based on this earlier work, the first major assault of the war was designed to stress the peer’s A2/AD system in order to gather intelligence on its operation, deplete its resources, and [if possible] reinforce the Joint Force’s prepositioned forces with new capabilities.  The assault was composed of RAS swarms of smart air, land and sea platforms set to a high degree of variable autonomy.  Given the risk of the mission, the human teams teamed with the swarms were stationed beyond the edge of the battle area.  The RAS swarms were trained to deceive, jam, and confuse the active sensor network, on land and in space, the opposition’s defense systems relied upon for strike guidance.  This worked.  The defense system was lit up like a Christmas tree and fired multiple salvos of hypersonic missiles at the Joint Force assault.  However, when these missiles reentered, they were unable to find the ships and aircraft they were expected to destroy.  The second wave sent by the defense system was composed of thousands of low cost RAS platforms packed to the brim with lightning fast PGMs.  The RAS platforms, manufactured in large volume over the last two decades, were expected to close on targets and overwhelm them with superior mass.

As these forces closed, it became clear that this wasn’t going to be a fair fight.  The Joint Force personnel at the edge of the effective battlespace were not surprised to see that the cloud-based training system they used to train their RAS swarms up until the last few days had successfully exploited the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the peer’s A2/AD system.  These swarms were able to systematically confuse, jam, outmaneuver, evade, and destroy the much more numerous RAS platforms of the opponent due to the far superior situational awareness, adaptability, and training of the traditionally developed systems deployed against them.  The swarms that did make it through did run into a surprise when the anti-air mobile laser used RAS based cognitive capabilities to knock out a dozen Joint Force drones before it was taken out of action.  Fortunately, the peer’s employment of RAS platforms that were cognitively dangerous, was limited to this this mobile laser.  This allowed the surviving drones to successfully reinforce the prepositioned assets before departing for recovery.

One the second day, the Joint Force Commander decided, based on the high degree of success so far, to accelerate the battle plan and takedown the entire A2/AD system without delay. The takedown assault began with an attack by hypersonic MIRVed missiles launched by F-35s in the north and converted Aegis cruisers at the edge of the peer’s defensive envelope.  These missiles released mesh networked MIRVs with the cognitive capability to rapidly evaluate their local situation and adopt the appropriate tactics during the handful of seconds available in the reentry phase.  To their credit, the MIRVs worked as expected, and they were able to take out the mobile RAS lasers that had been so problematic the day before.   Simultaneous with this, the forward deployed RAS forces sprang into action.  Cyber weapons forced the systems they had penetrated into critical collapse and the RAS UUVs in client state’s harbor blew up two peer munitions transports, crippling resupply efforts.  In few short hours, the entire defense grid, with tens of thousands of PGMs still unused, was down and Air Force and Navy continuous monitoring by flights of man/machine teams went into action to ensure it stayed dark.
The moment the grid went down, the third and final phase of the operation was launched.  This phase leveraged the automation of the US military’s logistics system to rapidly stage a ground assault force to secure the area.  Largely automated, this system was able to move men and material at and construct forward bases at an unprecedented pace.  It was so fast, in fact, the Army and the Marines were ready to stage their assaults within a few weeks of the success over the defense grid.  The men on the assault teams were armed with RAS weapons and able to find, identify, track, and engage multiple threats simultaneously.  They were teamed with RAS attack dogs and RAS mules serving as the support base for the swarm of RAS drones constantly gathering information for the team. 

The Army teams moving overland and Marine teams arriving by amphibious assault [in and around the harbor] traveled rapidly within self-driving RAS vehicles.  Since these vehicles, and the drones above them, were all using decentralized movement protocols, thousands of robotics vehicles were able to maintain high speed forward advance without congestion.   Mesh networks connected these ground assault teams with the reinforced prepositioned forces, the combat overwatch above, and each other.  The ground assault’s RAS driven vehicles rapidly converged on the defended points identified by the prepositioned forces.  Despite some hard fought engagement and a few attempted ambushes, the ground assault was over quickly.  It was later determined that that due to the rapidity of the assaults, the peer competitor was completely unprepared for a ground assault. 

Cognitive dominance achieved, the Joint Force Commander accepted the surrender of the enemy commander.
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JASTA on: September 12, 2016, 12:23:10 PM
Pasting Bid Dog's 911 post here as well:


"Reasonable minds can disagree about whether providing the 9/11 victims and their families with a meaningful civil remedy against Saudi Arabia, if the allegations are true, is worth that cost. But ...  the version of JASTA that passed the Senate (and, it now seems, the House) is the worst of both worlds...".
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 12, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Thanks for the Dead Witch article GM
125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / California ACTION item on: September 12, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What happens after ISIS falls? on: September 12, 2016, 12:55:43 AM
What Happens After ISIS Falls?
Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate is shrinking, but its demise is likely to bring new problems: fresh regional clashes, a revived al Qaeda and more terrorism in the West

By Yaroslav Trofimov
Sept. 9, 2016 11:30 a.m. ET

On July 4, 2014, a black-turbaned cleric named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took to the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in the Iraqi city of Mosul and proclaimed the founding of a new caliphate. Already in control of eastern Syria and western Iraq, this so-called Islamic State had global ambitions, Mr. Baghdadi declared. The self-appointed caliph vowed to restore “dignity, might, rights and leadership” to his fellow Sunni Muslims everywhere.

That audacious sermon from the heart of Iraq’s second-largest city was the culmination of a jihadist blitzkrieg that had seized most of the Sunni Arab parts of Iraq in previous weeks. It was also, it turned out, the high point of Islamic State’s bid to conquer the world.

Islamic State now seems likely to fall as swiftly as it rose. In the past two years, the group has gone to war with everyone from al Qaeda to Iran’s Shiite theocracy to the U.S. and Russia. It has launched attacks in the West and elsewhere—or, at any rate, claimed credit for them—with rising frequency, even as it has suffered a series of battlefield defeats and surrendered one city after another.

Turn of the Tide?
Islamic State has lost significant territory over the past year, and further setbacks in the year ahead may bring an end to the grand ambitions of the self-styled caliphate.

It is easy to think that Islamic State is still on the march. It isn’t. Over the past year, the territory under its control—once roughly the size of the U.K.—has shrunk rapidly in both Iraq and Syria. Islamic State has lost the Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra and the northern Syrian countryside bordering on Turkey. Its militants in Libya were ousted in recent weeks from their headquarters in Sirte. In coming months, the group will face a battle that it is unlikely to win for its two most important remaining centers—Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.

It may be tempting fate to ask the question, but it must be asked all the same: What happens once Islamic State falls? The future of the Middle East may well depend on who fills the void that it leaves behind both on the ground and, perhaps more important, in the imagination of jihadists around the world.

As we mark the 15th anniversary this weekend of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, one likely consequence of the demise of ISIS (as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is often known) will be to revive its ideological rival, al Qaeda, which opposed Mr. Baghdadi’s ambitions from the start. Al Qaeda may yet unleash a fresh wave of terrorist attacks in the West and elsewhere—as may the remnants of Islamic State, eager to show that they still matter.

“Simply having ISIS go away doesn’t mean that the jihadist problem goes away,” said Daniel Benjamin of Dartmouth College, who served as the State Department’s counterterrorism coordinator during the Obama administration. “Eliminating the caliphate will be an achievement—but more likely, it will be just the end of the beginning rather than the beginning of the end.”

What made Islamic State unique—and, until recently, so appealing to many young, disaffected Muslims—is that it managed to create an actual state in Syria and Iraq. In Mosul last year, food prices were lower than in Baghdad and the streets were kept clean, even as the group drove out the city’s Christians and Shiites, banned women’s beauty salons, forbade men from shaving their beards and threw gay men from rooftops. Unlike Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s, it was also a place in the heart of the Middle East to which adepts from around the world could migrate relatively easily, by way of Turkey’s porous borders.

When Mr. Baghdadi proclaimed his caliphate, demanding that all Muslims world-wide pledge allegiance to him and, if possible, relocate to the new state, more established jihadist leaders and clerics decried the move as illegitimate. They dismissed the new “caliph” as unqualified and warned that the whole venture would inevitably collapse, imperiling the jihadist cause.

Al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was one of the most virulent of these critics. He branded Islamic State as the new “Kharijites”—a universally reviled splinter sect of early Islam known for killing indiscriminately and falsely labeling other Muslims as infidels.

But as long as Islamic State kept going from strength to strength, such criticism didn’t seem to matter. Victories on the battlefields of Syria, Iraq and Libya were seen by Islamic State—and its potential backers and recruits—as divine validation of its project. Al Qaeda affiliates as far away as the Philippines and the North Caucasus switched their allegiance to Mr. Baghdadi.
A fighter from a U.S.-backed force helps civilians evacuated from a neighborhood formerly held by Islamic State in Manbij, Syria, on Aug. 12.
A fighter from a U.S.-backed force helps civilians evacuated from a neighborhood formerly held by Islamic State in Manbij, Syria, on Aug. 12. Photo: Rodi Said/Reuters

By the same token, however, battlefield losses today are undermining Islamic State’s theological foundations. “The loss of territory will pose a major problem because a great part of Islamic State’s legitimacy since the establishment of the caliphate in 2014 has arisen from control of territory,” said Stéphane Lacroix, a specialist in Islamist movements at Sciences Po University in Paris. The group has argued “that the caliph is legitimate precisely because he controls territory,” he said.

Today Mr. Baghdadi controls less and less of it, with Islamic State abandoning the Syrian town of Jarablus and scores of nearby villages without much of a fight in recent weeks. “We are at a point here where we are now really into the heart of the caliphate,” said Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command, on Aug. 30. “We do see momentum building in Iraq and Syria.”

Islamic State itself has acknowledged that not much may be left of the caliphate soon. The group’s chief spokesman, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, tried to prepare its followers in a speech released in May. “Will we be defeated and you victorious if you took Mosul or Sirte or Raqqa or all the cities and if we returned as we were in the beginning?” he asked the organization’s enemies. “No, defeat is losing the will and the desire to fight.” (Adnani was killed in an airstrike in Syria in late August.)

Islamic State won’t vanish completely, as an ideology or a terrorist organization, even if it loses all its land. Its precursor in Iraq survived the U.S. troop surge in 2007-09, bouncing back as the sectarian policies of the Shiite-led Iraqi government and the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad provided new opportunities for recruitment and expansion. And Islamic State is almost certain to try to demonstrate its relevance by staging more headline-grabbing massacres in the region and the West. The death rattle, counterterrorism experts warn, could be ferocious.

“As the physical caliphate disintegrates, and as it comes apart, as we dismantle it, I think that they will return to more of their terrorist-like roots. And so they will continue to try to either direct or support or potentially inspire attacks outside of the core in Iraq and Syria,” Gen. Votel said.

Still, the transformation of a de facto state into just another terrorist organization, one concerned with its own survival and discredited even among many fellow jihadists, is bound to shake the Middle East anew. Millions of people chafing under Islamic State rule will sigh with relief, as will the millions more ousted from their homes. But dismantling the “caliphate” won’t end the conflict now raging in and around Syria and Iraq—and may even intensify it.

Over the past two years, the campaign against Islamic State has brought together an unusually broad coalition that included Western democracies, Russia, Iran, Shiite militias, Turkey, Kurdish militias and Sunni Gulf monarchies. As Islamic State dwindles, some of these unlikely partners will probably turn on each other as they fight for the caliphate’s spoils.

Already, Turkey (a U.S. ally and fellow NATO member) and U.S.-backed Kurdish forces have clashed in northern Syria over lands recently wrested from Islamic State. Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government is also increasingly squabbling with the leaders of the country’s autonomous Kurdish region, with Baghdad refusing to recognize Kurdish control over several areas liberated from Islamic State by Kurdish fighters.

“The setbacks that ISIS is facing are creating more problems than its existence ever did,” said Hassan Abu Haniyeh, a Jordanian researcher of jihadist groups. “The pretext of fighting ISIS delayed the conflicts and the protest movements across the Middle East. Eliminating ISIS will bring back the conflicts everywhere. And it will embolden the people who had been holding back on demanding reforms by their countries’ regimes because they were concerned about ISIS.”

Moreover, the sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shiites over dominance of the region—the rivalry that helped to foster Islamic State’s initial rise in Iraq and then Syria—isn’t going away. That rift would only be deepened if more of the caliphate’s territory, largely inhabited by Sunni Arabs, fell into the hands of the pro-Iranian Shiite militias that have done much of the fighting against Islamic State, particularly in Iraq. A Shiite-controlled corridor from Iran to Lebanon would be a strategic nightmare for Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies—which will try to ensure that Sunni Arabs freed from Islamic State control can still fend for themselves, one way or another.

“There will not be a military solution unless there is also a political solution for all the problems in the Sunni areas, problems that have been there since the occupation of Iraq,” said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a leading Sunni Iraqi politician and the country’s former deputy prime minister.

All of this could be exploited by Islamic State’s main ideological rival in the jihadist universe, Mr. Zawahiri’s al Qaeda, which claims to stand for Sunnis combating what it alleges is a “Safavid-Crusader alliance” between the U.S. and Iran. (The Safavid dynasty converted what is now Iran from Sunni Islam to Shiism in the 16th century.)

Mr. Zawahiri has long been a vocal critic—first privately and then publicly—of Islamic State. The group grew out of the Iraqi franchise of al Qaeda shortly after its founder, the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed by a U.S. airstrike in 2006. Mr. Zawahiri quarreled with Mr. Zarqawi, and even more so with his successors, over Islamic State’s strategy of wantonly killing Shiite civilians and refusing to seek popular support.

Beaten back by the U.S. troop surge and pro-government Sunni militias in Iraq, Islamic State roared to life again after Syria plunged into civil strife in 2011. The resulting vacuum gave the group a haven in which to capitalize on Sunni grievances, attract international volunteers and become the world’s most prominent jihadist organization. In February 2014, after months of increasingly bitter disagreements, Islamic State openly broke with al Qaeda—a split that also severed Mr. Baghdadi’s relationship with al Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot, the Nusra Front, which remained loyal to Mr. Zawahiri.

Al Qaeda has been eclipsed by Islamic State’s gory attacks and gruesome videos, but it has not been idle. Under the leadership of Mr. Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor now widely thought to be based in Pakistan, the organization has embraced a more pragmatic approach: decentralizing its operations, burrowing deep into its host countries and creating alliances with less radical groups.

“Zawahiri must be luxuriating. He steered al Qaeda in a much more nuanced and subtle approach and has always played the long game—and what he sees now is a validation of his strategy,” said Bruce Hoffman, the director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University, who has advised the U.S. government on counterterrorism issues. With Islamic State “consuming all the oxygen in the room” for Western counterterrorism officials, Prof. Hoffman said, “nobody is paying much attention to al Qaeda.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Zawahiri has intensified his condemnations of Islamic State—which he sneeringly calls “the Ibrahim al-Badri group,” after Mr. Baghdadi’s real name—describing the rival organization as “a dagger in the back” of real Sunni jihadists. In a speech released online, Mr. Zawahiri contrasted Islamic State’s “abyss of extremism, infidel-branding and shedding forbidden blood” with al Qaeda’s efforts to bring Sunnis together.

Al Qaeda’s new emphasis on working as part of a broader alliance has been particularly striking in Syria. The Nusra Front has denied any interest in attacks outside Syria and, in July, said that it had cut ties with al Qaeda’s core—a move that Western officials dismissed as a ruse but that made the front more acceptable to other Sunni groups. The rebranded Nusra Front now operates as part of a rebel coalition known as the Army of Conquest, which includes both jihadists and more moderate, U.S.-backed militias. Many of these Syrian Sunnis cheer on the Nusra Front’s fighters for battling the Iranian-backed Assad regime, particularly in the northern city of Aleppo, and fume at U.S. efforts to target the group.

“I’m very impressed by how much [al Qaeda’s leaders] have learned from their mistakes and their bad experiences in Iraq,” said Robert Ford, who was the U.S. ambassador to Syria in 2011-14 and is now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “They are much less brutal in Syria than they were in Iraq, and they work with non-jihadi factions, which al Qaeda in Iraq never did. They are more subtle in their tactics, and they have a lot more local support…This will make them much harder to contain: It’s going to be a much harder job to develop forces to fight them, and it’s going to be a much harder job to develop public support for that.”

Al Qaeda’s other large franchises—in Yemen and North Africa—could also take advantage of Islamic State’s fall. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which claimed credit for last year’s massacre in Paris of journalists at Charlie Hebdo magazine, has “a chance to flourish now” by focusing on backing its fellow Sunnis in the increasingly bitter and sectarian civil war in Yemen, notes Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemen expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. And as Islamic State fades, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb—which has launched deadly assaults over the past year on international hotels in Mali, Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast—could forge closer ties with Mr. Baghdadi’s erstwhile subordinates in Nigeria’s ruthless Boko Haram insurgency, which is now riven by a leadership split.

“I don’t think everybody should relax after we get ISIS out of Mosul and Raqqa. The pressure must continue: If we relax, they will come back,” said Mahmoud Irdaisat, a Jordanian analyst and retired major general. “And we should not forget al Qaeda, because al Qaeda was the cradle from which ISIS came.”

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at
127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Baraq on the Empress Dowager in 2008 on: September 12, 2016, 12:32:53 AM
128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 11, 2016, 09:57:30 PM
Thank you GM.  Let's continue this discussion on the 2016 Election thread please.
129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 11, 2016, 09:49:17 PM
But Bill would not be 3 consecutive terms, , , what is the law on that?


So lets see what do we know:
History of Concussions
history of venous thrombosis
Warfarin anticoag on board
Fresnell lenses
Various tics and odd behaviour
Coughing episodes

All of this supports neurological damage to the brain which affects nerve supply to the pharyngeal nerves. She has difficulty regulating the temp, so perhaps hypothalamic injury ?. I am convinced this is not benign, not the common fainting spell which most of us have from time-time...Yash


Our Pat; picture of nurse checking Hillary's pulse as she walks


Does anyone think Hillary may have CLL? Or a myeloproliferative or myelodysplastic syndrome?


Before everyone goes nuclear, CLL is a myeloproliferative disorder but she may have one of the others or myelodysplastic syndrome. That would explain her constellation of symptoms and slow progression. Certainly none of them have a pretty outcome. They are debilitating though.


Pneumonia is a finding in many disease processes and a is a diagnosis in and of itself sometimes but in her case it is probably a finding that is part of the bigger picture that fills her more definitive diagnosis.  Coagulopathy, immune deficiency, thrombosis, and generalized lethargy sounds more like a systemic disease. My bet is myelopathic. Could be a lymphocytic SLL but more likely myeloid.
Hope I'm wrong.  

 PowerLine blog:

A prominent internist writes with admittedly speculative comments on the diagnosis of pneumonia made public today regarding Hillary Clinton. He writes:
During my 19 years as a board certified internist I have taken care of many hundreds of patients with pneumonia. The story about Hillary Clinton being diagnosed with pneumonia raises a red flag as to the cause. It could simply have been a community acquired pneumonia, which means she contracted it as a healthy person living her usual life. This happens occasionally, even to healthy people. If this is the case the timing certainly is unfortunate for her given where we are in the election cycle though it doesn’t portend anything ominous.

Another more worrisome possibility comes to mind. I raise this second possibility because of Hillary’s history of neurological illnesses (blood clot in brain, concussion), hints raised on the internet in Wikileaks documents and by others that she may have a neurological disease like Parkinson’s, and her by now well documented history of recurrent coughing fits. This second possibility is that she has an aspiration pneumonia.

Aspiration pneumonia occurs when fluids and food particles that normally enter the esophagus instead enter the windpipe and lungs. It is commonly seen in neurological conditions like strokes and Parkinson’s disease or similar diseases where the nerves to the swallowing mechanism are not working properly. This is especially worrisome because it is likely to recur given the underlying, usually incurable disease process and because it can be a life-threatening event.
I consider aspiration pneumonia to be the more likely cause because it unifies all the pieces of disparate information that are available on Hillary’s medical condition. A diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia raises profoundly troubling implications for her possible election as president.

Someone should demand full and immediate disclosure of her medical records. She should also be the subject of a swallow study to confirm that she can swallow normally (if one hasn’t been done already). Every voter should know what’s at stake.

130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 11, 2016, 06:18:47 PM
Or Biden-Warren?

BTW, a different camera angle here, one that makes it even clearer what bad shape she is in:
131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israel's partners in peace on 911 on: September 11, 2016, 06:14:39 PM
third post
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 911 on: September 11, 2016, 06:13:56 PM
second post
133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 11, 2016, 06:11:13 PM
If she dies, does Keane take the top slot , , , leaving room for Bill or Baraq in the SP slot?
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Words fail on: September 11, 2016, 06:07:53 PM
Words fail
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Peace through victory on: September 11, 2016, 02:01:27 PM
136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 11, 2016, 01:58:34 PM
From a different site.

This looks like cause for serious attention , , ,
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Impeach Hillary on: September 10, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / When swinging goes awry on: September 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
second post
139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Reducing Petraeus to rubble on: September 10, 2016, 08:46:20 PM
140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ahmad Shah Masoud on: September 10, 2016, 08:39:16 PM
141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Oregon Armed Occupation trial set to begin on: September 10, 2016, 08:24:39 PM
142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam - Education, Rebuttals and Counter-Terror on: September 10, 2016, 08:16:21 PM

I am about 1/4 of my way through what you posted-- very lean and mean with no wasted effort--very impressive!!!
143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / For troops, a tone deaf forum on: September 10, 2016, 08:08:30 PM

By Jeremy Stern
Sept. 9, 2016 6:43 p.m. ET

Wednesday’s “Commander-in-Chief Forum” between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump showed how out of touch America’s leadership is with the nation’s military. The televised interviews were an opportunity for the candidates to audition for leader of the armed forces. What followed were stale discussions that answered few of the questions troops actually have. Though the forum was held before a group of veterans, the questions asked and selectively fielded from the audience put America’s civil-military divide on full display.

The first sign that politicians and journalists are not at home talking policy with military personnel is their fixation on the Iraq war. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump and NBC host Matt Lauer touched on this topic four times. (How to win the war on terror, by contrast, was asked exactly once.) Like many politicians, the candidates competed for the honor of supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq the least. The underlying assumption is that, having paid the highest price, troops must have the lowest opinion of that unpopular war. Perhaps, but members of the military have a much more complicated relationship to unpopular wars than ordinary citizens assume.

From the first day of basic training, soldiers are indoctrinated to the principle of civilian control. Every member of the military has taken a solemn oath to obey the president and defend the Constitution. Troops understand that their job is implementation, not policy, and that not every decision made in the White House is going to be the right one. Not every war will be vindicated, not every casualty justified. That’s life in a liberal democracy.

What troops want is a president who will deliver the resources, strategy and public support they need to win once the decision to go to war is made. Far more consequential to troops than the decision to invade Iraq was the Pentagon’s inability to provide them with the equipment they needed and the public’s collapse of support for the war they were asked to fight. Rather than renounce or deny support for Iraq like beauty contestants reciting their wish for world peace, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump should have been asked what lessons they learned from Iraq and why next time will be different.

Another sign that politicians and journalists are unfamiliar with military life is what Mr. Lauer called the “emotional burden” of putting “American men and women in harm’s way,” which was discussed six different times. Troops don’t like war more than other people, and their families certainly abhor it most. But war plays a more complex role in the lives of troops than the hackneyed “boots on the ground” versus “war weariness” debate we often have.

For hundreds of thousands of troops, the military is not just a choice and a job; it is a necessity and a calling. The U.S. armed forces offer a paycheck, pension, health care, housing, community and purpose to many young Americans who would struggle to find them elsewhere. Members of the military understand that in exchange their country may call upon them to go to war.

For most troops, this is not a deal with the devil. Experience in war allows young soldiers to gain the trust and respect of their superiors and subordinates, and combat deployments are essential to their promotion through the ranks. Deployments are also an opportunity for troops to apply their skills and training and to be awarded for doing so with integrity and distinction.

It’s not always popular to say, but there are very few people in the military who haven’t made peace with the dangers that entails. War is a physical and psychological risk, yes, but it is also an opportunity to seek honor and adventure. You might not know it if your contact with millennials is mainly on campuses where political correctness and microagressions can be an obsession, but honor and adventure are very natural things for young Americans to want. Last I heard, the rank-and-file still like Reagan, Roosevelt and Lincoln more than Carter, Hoover or Buchanan.

Apart from so many questions on military intervention and Iraq, only one question was asked about the Department of Veterans Affairs. By contrast, five questions were asked about Vladimir Putin. Each candidate was asked just once about the alarming rate of suicide among veterans, while a combined 14 questions went to Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal and Mr. Trump’s history of controversial, media-baiting comments. Sequestration, which has contributed to the Pentagon’s decision to cut tens of thousands of troops from service and slash billions of dollars from their benefits, was never mentioned.

A leadership class with more military experience and closer ties to the military community would enrich our national-security debate. For now, it seems, we’re stuck with an elite increasingly out of touch with those who serve. No wonder a July survey of Military Times subscribers found that more than 82% of military personnel were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with Mrs. Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and more than 61% felt that way about Mr. Trump as the GOP nominee.

The candidate who wins the military vote will be the one who stops using troops to justify campaign positions, and starts speaking to the concerns our men and women in uniform actually have.
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Norks (slip streamed by Iran no doubt) accelerate towards reaching US on: September 10, 2016, 08:00:03 PM
North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test Friday, following three missile tests on Monday and about 20 so far this year. The accelerating pace of the Kim Jong Un regime’s nuclear and missile testing shows its determination to threaten Japan, South Korea and the U.S. homeland with nuclear weapons. The question is whether the West is capable of a more determined response.

Every nuclear test leaves forensic clues, and analysts are suggesting this was Pyongyang’s most successful, with an apparent yield of 10 kilotons. This is the North’s second test this year, suggesting it has an ample supply of nuclear material from its restarted plutonium reactor and enriched uranium.

The North said it tested a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be placed on a missile. True or not, we know its scientists had access to a Chinese design for a partially miniaturized weapon through the proliferation network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The U.S. believes the North already has small enough warheads to fit on short-range missiles aimed at South Korea.

The North’s workhorse Nodong missile now has a range of more than 600 miles. In June it launched a medium-range Musudan missile from a road-mobile launcher, which makes it hard to detect and destroy. North Korea recently launched a missile from a submarine into the Sea of Japan at a range of 300 miles. This means Pyongyang now has a second-strike capability if the world tried a preventive attack to destroy its nuclear weapons.

A growing worry for the U.S. is the North’s new KN-08 intercontinental missile with the range to hit Chicago. In February the North used a similar rocket to launch a small satellite into space. Significant challenges remain, including a warhead that could withstand the vibration and temperature changes of a long-range missile flight. But the North has repeatedly solved technical problems more quickly than expected.

All of this means the window to prevent the North from becoming a global nuclear menace is closing while the proliferation risks are growing. The North has cooperated with Iran on missile development in the past and may share its nuclear secrets.

Right on cue, the world’s powers condemned the missile launch. And President Obama promised “additional significant steps, including new sanctions to demonstrate to North Korea that there are consequences to its unlawful and dangerous actions.”

Yada, yada, yada. Why should Kim and company fear such words?

Sanctions get passed as a ritual but are never enforced enough to matter. Earlier this year China began to enforce new sanctions, but Beijing let trade with the North resume after Seoul decided in July to deploy the U.S. Thaad missile-defense system. Only sanctions that imperil the regime will force the North to freeze its nuclear program, and Beijing has never been willing to risk undermining its client state.

Meanwhile, the U.S. won’t even use secondary sanctions against Chinese entities trading with the North. A February U.N. report identified dozens of Chinese firms linked to blacklisted North Korean entities and detailed how the Bank of China allegedly facilitated $40 million in deceptive wire transfers for a Pyongyang-linked client. Cutting off such firms from the global financial system could deter others from trading with the North.

But for that to happen Mr. Obama would have to behave differently than he has for eight years. The result is that the next American President will inherit one more grave and growing threat to Western security.
145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam - Education, Rebuttals and Counter-Terror on: September 10, 2016, 07:55:51 PM
146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Articulating our cause/strategy against Islamic Fascism on: September 10, 2016, 07:55:23 PM
147  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Cheney on Baraq's foreign policy on: September 10, 2016, 07:54:33 PM
148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gen. Keane on Trump's "Generals reduced to rubble" on: September 10, 2016, 03:21:38 PM
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NY Post: No we did not owe Iran that $1.7 billion on: September 10, 2016, 03:06:41 PM
150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Whoops! We trained the ISIS Minister of War on: September 10, 2016, 11:33:53 AM
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 754
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!